Physics Analysis Summaries towards a proposal Discussion at the November CB was constructive no a priori negative opinions practical suggestions brought forward We should now come to a more specific proposal taking into account as many inputs as possible Let’s not concentrate on the more specific “constitutional” aspects (leave them to the specific task force) E. Scomparin, EB meeting, 13 December 2016

Inputs from the CB Overall speed of the preparation/approval process is probably one of the more delicate points IRC  necessary, but optimization of the review is mandatory, in order not to introduce delays When should the IRC enter the game ? As soon as possible We should have a fast process without compromising quality  Leave as much as possible of the preparation process in the hands of PWGs or their representatives, define a limited set of formal steps to be accomplished “Practical” structure of the document (template ?) Not discussed in great detail, try not to be too strict Example: comparison with theory models felt as not mandatory, priority on the experimental results but probably this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis

Inputs from the CB Need for a round in the Collaboration Explicitly asked by some CB members, since the note is signed by the Collaboration No contrary voices to ~1 week circulation Need for a “forced” set of comments Felt as not necessary  do not appoint commenting institutes, leave to each collaborator the “scientific” responsibility for reading the PAS and sending his/her suggestions An EB reader, to help with the quality of the write-up should be appointed (early, together with the IRC ?)

PAS: definition, purpose Physics Analysis Summary (PAS) Definition Public document that contains results and figures of a preliminary analysis Aim Supply the Collaboration and the physics community with a reference information, that helps in understanding the result and its implications

PAS: structure Meant as a guideline (1) Brief introduction and motivation (2) No description of ALICE (3) Dataset and analysis (no technical info, no intermediate figures that you would not put in a paper) (4) systematic uncertainties (5) results (6) model comparison (not extensive) (7) (short) physics discussion All the figures that go in the PAS become ALICE-Preliminary

PAS: steps and involved entities Time zero is the conference for which the preliminary is issued PWG decides on proposing a preliminary result and the analysis team (AT) starts working on a draft - 4 weeks: PB and EB are informed EB appoints review committee (RC), formed by ARC+1 EB member - 3 weeks: AT sends draft to RC, which reacts in a few days - 2 weeks: forum approval and freezing of the physics content - 2 weeks: circulation in the Collaboration, for 1 week - 1 week: comments received (no re-discussion of general points) and implemented in 2-3 days maximum - 1 day: EB submits to CDS

Remarks Focus stays on the forum approval, it is the Physics Forum to decide that the result goes out Role of the PAS is simply to properly document the result, no further stop is issued except if A last-minute bug is found by anybody in the results The PAS is not ready at -2 weeks (coincides with the approval Forum) In order for the procedure to be efficient and fast, a constructive attitude and is required by BOTH AT & RC  AT should provide a good quality document to RC (previous PWG help is welcome)  RC should give a decisive help, avoiding confrontation on non-decisive issues

Physics Analysis Summaries Some aspects which can be the object of a discussion today, beyond the very existence of PAS a) “Material” aspect of PAS Similar to a public note, to appear in http://cds.cern.ch As an entry in a devoted section of the ALICE web site … b) “Triggering” body PWG PB and/or EB c) “Approving” body Forum / PB d) Circulation in the Collaboration 1 week ? 2 weeks ? No circulation, only Forum discussion ? e) EB role Assign reviewers (ARC), editorial aspects (uniformity, etc.), submission of the note modulo “ARC/IRC” review